The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
space, the universe and everything
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
space, the universe and everything
0 Replies
2588 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
woolyhead
(OP)
Jr. Member
39
Activity:
0%
space, the universe and everything
«
on:
02/11/2013 20:00:31 »
This description of my idea starts off sounding just like other theories but it become novel later on. It's that before the big bang there existed another universe which got itself sucked down a black hole of sorts. But when the energy density in the hole reached a critical figure a new universe was born, complete with a new set of physical laws. Prior to this event there was no space but there was something else. Call it sub-space. The black hole's energy was released into sub space. This energy had to move, according to the new laws. Because it occurred at a dimensionless point the only direction in which the energy could move was radially outwards. After a while the expansion increased the entropy of the radiation and a sort of state-change occurred and matter was formed. Then space inflated (Guth). But I think that sub-space is still there, everywhere in fact.
With quantum entanglement, to drag in another concept, the speed at which a change in wave function occurs when one of the entangled particle's wavefunction changes, is infinite. I reckon this is because (and here comes my theory) the two (or more) wavefunctions are connected together in sub-space.
So where's my proof? Well imagine I'd come up with this theory first and you'd asked me for the proof. The proof offered would be what I've just described ie Alain Aspect's experimental result would be my proof. Unless you've got a better idea, that is.
«
Last Edit: 02/11/2013 20:34:10 by woolyhead
»
Logged
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...